To be shocked deferring by a year has become this common?

[Killiam]

My DS is 4, his birthday is august 28th, he started school this year.
Today I went to a session at his school where parents were invited in to see what they have been doing etc.
After I was talking to some parents and they noted more than once how tiny he is, I said ah well he has just turned 4 so makes sense. This is when I learned of his class of 24 kids, 4 of them should have started the year before 1 June birthday, 2 July and 1 August. The next closest in age to my son is a June baby so no other July or August babies born his year at all!
DS seems to be doing well but when I asked the other summer parents why they decided to defer they basically all said they just felt their kids needed more time, nothing the separates them from DS.
DS does cry most days going in and couldn't write his name or anything before starting.
The school is in central London and is very diverse but lots of Eastern European and Asian parents and Ive learn that in most of those countries 6 or even 7 is a more common. starting age so I wonder if that plays a role?

AIBU to be shocked it is so common to defer now? Starting to wonder if I made the right choice!

Standardised test scores are a thing. I’m a teacher and we used to carry out standardised tests in y4 if I recall. And they were given a score - almost like an IQ score. But their raw mark was cross referenced with their age in months to get the final score. So 2 kids who get the same number of marks on the test could score differently in the end depending on their actual age. This does make things fairer. I wish SATs and GCSEs were marked this way!!

I have been looking into this for a while as I have end July birthday twins born at 36 weeks. They hit lots of physical milestones very late - crawling at 12 months, walking at 18, and are very small for their age. I was very relieved when I found out about deferring, think it’s really good to have the option/flexibility. Child development is so individual, there will be some summer borns who will do just fine in Reception having just turned 4, and others who would really struggle and will benefit from starting just after they turn 5. My twins are now 3 years 2 months and I think they will start with their normal cohort in September 2025 as social, communication skills and development wise they are doing very well, but it is very reassuring to know there is an alternative option.

Our local grammar allows them out of cohort sad long as they've been with their class at least 3 years. In terms of test scores they are headed as September born.

I checked with them before deferring.

I had end of July babies - twins - had I the choice at the time we’d have deferred - school was a nightmare, ds was not ready socially. The teachers and the pupils made no allowances and he suffered.

Way back when my August baby started school children joined reception throughout the school year, so he didn't start until the term before he turned 5. I think deferring has become a lot more common now that all children all start in the September

Just so you know he was still the youngest in his class, born just days before the cut off date, he was almost a year younger than some in his class. And it showed. But as he went through the school years it would often be forgotten that he was so much younger than many of his classmates. And even in first year of high school there's a big difference in the maturity level of an almost 12yo and a just 11yo

It’s so child dependent. I have two summer borns. My girl was ready for school really. She was always very articulate and able. She did however struggle socially at times, and I could see she was one of the youngest at parties etc. My DS is august born, his language is quite delayed and we currently suspect some SEND needs. The pressure is on as he should start school just a few days after his 4th birthday. I suspect this is a big reason a significantly higher number of summer born child are identified at having SEND. We are seriously considering delaying him. It has nothing to do with him needing to be top of the class, I doubt he will be. I also think he will probably be ok in reception. But I know when he hits key stage one at just turned 5 he will never cope with that formal
learning. As a teacher I have seen so many children struggle with year 1 . I just don’t see why we rush them and strongly believe play based learning should be the norm for longer.

So many people are only thinking about how they will cope academically and in primary school, as well. A lot of the issues manifest at secondary school, especially with girls, and are about emotional maturity. There's absolutely no way you can predict how that will play out for your individual child when looking at then aged 3 and making the decision on whether or not to defer the following year, when they'll be 4. Hence why people are inclined, looking at the data (which is pretty shocking given the significant and lifelong effects) that it would be better not to take the risk, given their children an additional year of childhood and send them to school closer to the age when formal learning is developmentally appropriate (i.e. 6-7, hence why most countries begin formal education at this age). Sadly, here, the most we can do for children within our current legal framework is ensure this is delayed until they are at least 4 yrs and 5 months (the April borns who cannot be deferred). So obviously, people do it if they can because nobody wants to subject their child to unnecessary harm and needlessly having a whole year less of childhood/ education than other children. 🤷🏻‍♀️

In Scotland our years run 1st March-28th Feb (assume England is 1st Sept-31st Aug?). we don’t start school until somewhere around 20th August. Deferral was common place if born Jan/Feb however we can now defer if the child is not yet 5 by the start of school year.
i haven’t heard of anyone regretting deferral at all but I do know of many that regret not doing so however I do think it is dependent on the child!
my nephew for example is born Jan, my son Sept so they started the same school year. Nephew deferred and I completely agree it was the correct thing to do!
youngest has just started school, one friend is away to be 6 (deferred last year) and yet one isn’t 5 until Feb and was not deferred! often the differences aren’t noticed at the start of school journey but when it comes to exams the maturity will be different.

my opinion, education system needs a full re haul as it’s dated and does NOT cater to all children. I don’t think children should start school until earliest after they are 5, ideally 6 !

This wasn’t an option when our boys were younger , our second son has a birthday in early August, he was tired a lot in reception, from what I can remember it took him til the spring term to fully “enjoy” school.
I think he was part time until Christmas? Anyhow? This was 2006.
He’s now just started a PhD ( linked to some sort of chemistry/bacteria?) after doing a chemistry degree.
I work in Early years and the children who are deferred, only my opinion, usually get very bored in nursery, they’ve been there for 2+ years , done everything already.
Obviously this doesn’t apply to SEN .

My Mum homeschooled me so I started school aged 5 and two weeks as in those days you could start at Easter and I waited until September.

I was so far ahead, as were some others, that we skipped Y3 entirely which meant the deferment ended up being worthless...

I think you probably are doing the right thing. Your child will be learning to read so much earlier and be a whole academic year ahead. Many exams for younger children are age adjusted so they'll be at a disadvantage as the oldest in their year.

OP, I have an August boy. He’s been fine. His sister is a September girl and I’ve not noticed any difference between them. Try not to stress.

In effect the results are weighted as they are listed top to bottom by birth month for sats, gcse and alevels at a national level.vel
imo that is partly as kids need to develop reading and writing for everything and if they get behind on that and dont catch up obviously that affects everything else. Then maths obviuosly is maths,bio, chem and physics at gcse level. So issues with that also affect a lot. If you have to focus on a specific weakness or just struggle to keep up if affects energy and time on everything else..

---As pp says the curriculum has moved downwards since maybe 2014. So not comparable with our schooling.
-- Yes someone will be youngest but some kids would be behind no matter what and likewise others far ahead.

• Confidence is also an issue as is friendships.

but also the consideration is the child doing reception cuuprriculum at 4.0 or 5.0. And for that child will the education be more appropriate.

its clear having had a child of 4y3m go through reception that it is not appropriate for some kids. If your chiod already struggles to sit still etc. Dd was constantly being told off. In terms of intelligence she could read chapter books before 5. But was that needed no. She wasnt ready for all the social stuff plus school were not good w ith supporting so many kids basically left to it...
ive seen an august born boy picked on in yr 3 and hes ended up changing school.

dd has gone onto an asd referral but not via school who always just said she was naughty. She spent a lot of reception out of class sent to another one.
if school were not also dealing with immature kids beause of starting at 4 it might have been clearer to them something was wrong. Nursery had flagged issues (even thoug h she was meeting the eyfs targets byt because they are age based you can be doing ok then next set of targets is for kids up to almost 6.

at an individual level 4vs 5 might make next to no difference to an advanced child. But at 3 when you apply many sen arent clear (often see on here kids not speaking at 3-4). Many kids werent doing 30 hours a week at 3 so again the sen etc lesss obvious. And few nurseries have groups of up to 60 wandering around together.

In reception there was a kid repeating who then moved to a sen school. Still in nappies at 6 . I think it probably would have been better to delay his start. The result would have been the same but im sure issues would have been clearer re a 5-6yo than a 4-5 where more common for those issues.

In effect the results are weighted as they are listed top to bottom by birth month for sats, gcse and alevels at a national level

Presumably, to make such a system actually reflect the amount of education a child has received, they will deduct any months/ years that the failures of the school system have prevented a child from attending school at all?

So my "deferred" child actually has only three months of school that were completed without disruption due to illegal behaviour by the school meaning she couldn't attend, since she started in Sept 2023.

Of COURSE they won't factor that in though, will they?

Ultimately most of the arguments put forward about this are garbage. Personal anecdotes, comments about individual Local Authorities ignoring the law (as they often do in any circumstance, but are overruled when challenged legally as they have np leg to stand on), of false argument about how we should subject all children to foreseeable harm because some parents choose to do damaging things even when they can freely choose not to because otherwise it "isn't fair".

Ultimately no child school be in school at 4 or even 5. We know this. Child development research is absolutely clear on this point. So no, obviously most responsible parents won't choose to send a child at 4 instead of 5 when they have that choice now, unless there are very specific circumstances that convince them it would benefit the child not just now but into their teens, to send them before compulsory school age out of choice when as a PP pointed out, it is cost free financially to defer for all those earning under £100k because they still get 30hrs free childcare which covers the hours the child would be at school.

It cost me - as a lone parent - over £25k to defer my child for a year. I still did it because it was in her best interests. I couldn't give a damn about how she performs in relation to the rest of her class. They could all be born in Sept so a matter of days different to her in age, or all in August the previous year and with parents who chose not to defer their kids to a more appropriate age. Completely irrelevant either way. My concern is about her wellbeing, not her position relative to other random people we don't even know. Really bizarre to read such comments here, as if anyone cares what unknown parents of other children at their child's school might think or not think about them/ their kid?

Yes same here, all Jan/Feb kids were deferred. About a third of the class actually started age 5y8m. I know in the year above one wasn't deferred so is same age as our year group but will ultimately sit exams in high school when our year kids are on pathway year behind so more time to develop emotionally and maturity.

There's research available that deferred kids did statistically better in exams than non-deferred kids and that was a contributing factor to our decision. Your right about other countries not starting until later with formal learning too. I know other parents held similar views.

I'm sure last year the scottish government changed it to any kid can be deferred from August birthdays now and claim 2 years nursery so it's open to anyone. So you can still start at 4y5m or do 5y5m if you want now.

So I guess if everyone takes that up then kids in Scotland will generally start later at minimum of 5y5m in primary 1, start high school education 12y5m and finish high school 18y.

I think it's the right thing for kids to give them more time in preschool but it's a personal decision and I suppose local dynamics need to be taken into consideration. If no one else was deferring when we did I may have worried about being the oldest by a long shot but it is common now.

Not sure how England works, if it's bothering you can you put them back to nursery?

Live abroad and kids here start at aged 5.

Also to be noted that daycare if heavily subsided, and available up untill they start school

I think it makes sense, rather than 4 years old

daycare is heavily subsided

^ supposed to say, not if

Most later starting countries have highly structured play-based programmes in place in universally accessed pre-school/kindergartens, it's not just sandpits and scooters

^
This is how the subsided daycares work. They have academic targets to reach, it's not just playtime.

They should know their alphabet, shapes, colours, numbers to ten and be toilet trained/adequately socialised etc. Can read single words, perhaps short sentences.

I've had three at school in a later starting country and reading words and short sentences is absolutely not expected. There are certainly things children should have learned at kindergarten, but no 'academic targets'.

I'm in the NE, my working experience is it is SEN children, who are going into mainstream schools, and sadly, aren't going to cope due to lack of support they need. Often, the hope has been that a place might come up in a SEN school, or the child's level of need might change. I used to worry a lot, about these children.
Legally, any child can be deferred until age 5, but this would cause chaos.

4 is far too early to start school for some children. The research supports that and shows children that start later do better socially, educationally etc. where I’m from it’s common to defer especially in boys.

In the 90's at primary school I used to be so confused by two sisters. They were twins but one was in one year and one in the year above.
They had a few hours between them.

There were 2 boys in one year who were brothers and looked nothing alike but had 10 months between them.

As I got a bit older it made sense.
I never understood why the sister's couldn't be in the same year.
As it turns out the older sister got the better deal - no uni fees and got a grant to go up uni.

These days the parents would have had options.
It's like a PP said some uneducated parents don't know how to advocate for themselves.

Not all LAs allow it but I would have applied to defer if my children were summer born.

I think its good that it's an option, but it's hard knowing where the cut off should be. My DD2, born in May 5 weeks early so should have been a late June baby would have been eligible for deferral, but we decided against it as felt she was ready.

In year 1, her teacher is already struggling to challenge her - I asked her if could have more challenging reading books as she was finding them too easy (each group covers 1 book together during week and then brings it home on weekend) and could she possibly move up a group, I had assumed she was in a lower group as a summer born, and was told no she couldn't as already in highest group for every subject. If I had deferred her, she would have been so far ahead that school would have been pretty boring for her.
.
So deferring is t always the best option and it shouldn't be assumed that summer born will automatically struggle, DD2 finds her work much easier than DD1 (September baby) at the same age.

It's a weirdly hot topic in my friend group, with my 2 best friends hoping to time pregnancies for October babies. The weirdest thing is all 3 of us are June-July birthdays and we were all very academic and socially confident at school (tbf we didn't go to primary school together so maybe they struggled more there) I'd prefer a summer baby as it's less time paying for childcare, although in my home country school starts at 6 and this only recently changed from 7. Children are very adaptable.

I'm sure you've made the right choice for your child. It makes such a difference to a child's confidence in those early years.
"Show me the child at 7, and I'll show you then man"